Y'all need to read Catechism of a Revolutionary tbh
Tfw there have been two nihilist revolutions and nobody gives a damn
Maybe if you guys actually started assassinating porkys instead of wanking each other off to how bad life is people would join your movement again.
Nobody cares because the only thing nihilists have done for socialism was shoot a tsar
Ummmm I posted a wiki link. And it's all sourced on there. Try clicking it maybe?
I detest nihilists.
Although, yes, Nechayev and the events you mention are too overlooked.
Nihilism has been a direct cause of reactionary views, and acts of violence we see in our society today. Fuck off retard.
yeah but every time I see that flag I'm like… whatever
I watched a documentary this morning on Pol Pot and what struck me were the similarities between his thought and praxis and Bakuin(ism) (I acknowledge that a lot of contemporary anarchism owes more to council-communism and syndicalism than it does to Bakuin) in that the whole way that the core of the "organization" remained secret goes almost completely hand in hand with Bakuin's stuff about "Invisible dictatorship", and also would seem to flow out of what he wrote in "catechism of a revolutionist". Then there is seeing the peasants and the lumpens as more "pure" revolutionary material because of their being more "natural" than urban workers. Then there is the cultural nihilism and wanting to sweep everything away that belongs to the past culture as opposed to integrate from it what is truly human. This of course was also the strategy of Blanqui, who hated the working class and believed socialism could only be implemented by a secret intellectual elite via a coup.
I also saw a lot of parallels between Brother Number One and Nestor Makhno for very much the same reason. Like Makhnovtchina the Khmer Rouge wasn't really a "state" in a traditional sense. Makhno also organized the peasants (not the industrial proletariat) into a revolt that was very free-form, decentralized, and not tied down to a single set of moral principles, much like the Angkor. Makhnovtchina also resulted in mass clusterfuck.
So in conclusion it seems to me that rather than an example of the "failure" of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the Khmer Rouge should be used as an example of the failures of anarchism, blanquism and ultra-leftism.
I'm nihilist in two senses: embracing the power of the negative and subjecting any positive program to ruthless criticism.
And two, acknowledging modernity itself is nihilist and you cannot have any set of transcendental values that aren't at risk of melting into air. This nihilism is nothing to be decried, on the contrary, one should even accelerate it
If you hate this flag so much tell me what flag to shitpost with, all the other flags a shit.
Yeah good luck getting anything done. Even Marx came up with positive programs; he didn't just shitpost.
Regarding property, what is nihilism's stance? Private, collective, etc?
It doesn't matter. Nothing matters, after all.
For real tho, I want to know
Pol Pot was the best nihilist anarchist.
If you can't sustain a society that leads to the actual liberation and well-being of humanity, rather than some ephemeral shit that collapses either on it's own weight or after bourgeois invasion, then we don't give a fuck. You'll get the bullet along with the rest of liberals.
But ☭TANKIE☭s never accomplished this either.
I made as a joke, but after reading this post, I'm un-ironically using the flag from now on. I resolve to "embrace the power of the negative".
Tankies, you lost in '89, you don't get to use that argument anymore.
sure, if you say so, buddy
and even the source of the downfall (where could anarchists fall down from, they never got anywhere to begin with) was external to the tenants of ML, the very revisionism Stalin argued and struggled against
only after giving up this very struggle it was won by that enemy
and how exactly does this equate to the inherent incompetence of anarchists?
if anything 89 has proven ML even more right: revisionism will lead to decay and counterrevolution and anti-revisionist solutions are already there, Stalins proposals for democratization are core to this
what are the lessons anarchists have learned? oh right: "fucking ☭TANKIE☭s wont let us have nice things REEE!"
There's nothing about a revolution in there. Insurgencies, terrorism, assassinations do not by themselves amount to a revolution. Your ideology is a fucking joke to the right and embarrassment to the left.
I had the same thought.
You are an useless infantile faggot in only one sense, tho.
The funny thing is that it didn't even last whole three years. Makhno actually fucked up and lost all of his territories to the whites while he was gone sightseeing in Moscow, because (and this is the hilarious part) a German spy forged Makhno's orders to put down their arms. Makhno had to rush back home to reestablish his "second commune".
This is how truly libertarian libertarianism is: EVERYTHING depends on one man, who is of course TOTALLY NOT OUR DEAR LEADER.
Lenin & Trotsky actually wanted to offer the anarchists autonomous zones but the civil war turned against the allied reds against each other on several occasions. Only faggots learning history from the highly rosy "Anarchist FAQ" think that "the soviets did all the bad stuff while Makhno was a saint." Makhno literally robbed his allies, agitated against soviet troop discipline, murdered and tortured soviet messengers.
But I guess books are for fags.
Bullshit, Trotsky had Anarchists and peasants murdered in the thousands because they were "counter revolutionary" and this was even before they allied. On top of that Trotsky and the bolsheviks attempted to assassinate him twice.
So reclaiming territory that was once held by the Bolsheviks, then taken from them by the whites and then taken from them by the Blacks is robbing now?
While still denouncing them and not holding up their end of the bargain.
Even if this is true (which is likely bullshit considering that the free territory allowed freedom of press for bolshevik news outlets) what else do you expect when the red army backstabs you repeatedly.
I read your two first words
knew immediately that you are misquoting me
and stopped reading your post altogether. If this is the best you can do you should stick to >>>/leftpol/
Who the fuck are you quoting? Who are you talking to? Is this your simulation of a discussion?
This is a proper nihilist flag you dum dum
You've been doing that a lot this evening.
Either I've been talking to different people (which I hope I am) or you're samefagging is showing.
The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own. His entire being is devoured by one purpose, one thought, one passion - the revolution. Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose - to destroy it. –
— Catechism of a Revolutionary
That's pretty neat actually. Gonna take OP's advice and read that book. Also guys I don't think OP actually gives a damn if you don't like his views… I mean literally haha.
Well no shit, but taking the piss still shows we have a sense of humour.
By his sick son? Or one of his underage daughters? Hmmm.
And also… It's TOTALLY not like that the assassination of monarchs always have had a huge impact usually and inspire other revolutionary groups to take action…
nietzsche > nihilism tbh
What the fuck.